Could you elaborate on why this is a bad idea? I'm slightly interested in it for low cost connections. In my current area, I don't have a problem finding grain legs for AP sites. These would be dense enough that I could build a great network with white spaces cells and 5GHz backhauls.
But if I look farther north in Michigan, the forests are denser and the grain legs disappear. The terrain is flat enough that I can't use "mountains" for cheap tower sites. And none of the 900-2.4-3.65-5GHz radios are going thru the trees. It seems like a PtP backhaul that would work ten(?) miles thru trees would be a great cost savings over building towers. Maybe use two channels for full duplex. The rural areas that I'm looking at have over twenty channels free. (thanks Brian Webster for your kmz!) On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:28 PM, John Scrivner wrote: > We have been fighting it. Towerstream seems to have somehow created a > perception that they are justified in this desire to set aside TVWS > spectrum > for this inefficient use. We have been fighting it and we will > continue to > do so. > Scriv > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > >> I keep seeing desire to have a special category set aside for PtP >> backhaul >> operations in the whitespaces. >> >> To those of you that understand the extreme rural environments... >> Is this >> at all necessary? I don't see why it would be. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
